Posted by Homerbert at host213-1-76-233.btinternet.com on June 21, 2001 at 18:05:53:
In Reply to: Dobbin: regarding WATCHMEN and DARK KNIGHT RETURNS posted by Pseudo on June 21, 2001 at 14:43:35:
>
Um, the campy Batman was banished before that, due to Neal Adams work.
>
I agree with him. It's a technically astounding peice of work, but there are comics with much more emotion and impact (Preacher), or more interesting ideas (V For Vandetta). It's still great, but it is IMHO not the best comic ever.
>
Again, there were comics before Watchmen and DKR that had non camp superheroes.
>
I have not met one person who isn't a comic nut who can consider anything with superheroes high art. Sandman, just about, maybe Transmet or something, but not DKR.
>
Sad fact, they are considered something for pre-teens now.
>
No, it didn't. I don't know who you hangout with, but "normal" folk don't accept comics. That is until you give them something mind blowing, but i'll get to that.
>
Nonsense. Most often they'll be dismissed as superhero stuff, even when they read them. You give them something that shatters preconceptions, like Transmet, Preacher, or 100 bullets. No spandex, lots of swearing, sex, blasphemy and violence. Show them stuff they've never seen before.
>
Yes they would. Do you honestly believe that no-one would have created a mature readers comic by now if not for those two. There wouldn't be a VErtigo, but it would be there. Mature spandex comics might not be popular, but other stuff would be there, like Ghostworld, or Barry Ween without DKR.
>
Of course, but a lot of the writers mentioned are English, who derive their style (and distaste for super heroes) from a pulpy mad weekly anthology called 2000AD, which is a bigger influence on styles than all the Marvel and DC stuff put together.
I'm not putting down super heroes (Although there are too damn many of them), or the Watchmen, or DKR. I'm simply pointing out they're over praised.